Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive annotations, the description discloses the exact question ordering, the conditional organization block returned when a key is present, and the fact that no organization block is returned without a key. It also explains that contact email is captured earlier through start_order_intent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the return value and question order, then covers key behavior and usage guidance. It is mostly efficient, though the fragmented sequence sentences and the final 'No key needed' could be slightly tightened.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains what is returned, the order of returned questions, conditional organization-block behavior, prerequisite context, and when to use it versus get_discovery.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The mention of a key is contextual rather than an input parameter, and no parameter semantics are needed for an empty schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states exactly what the tool returns: order questions as structured data in the order to ask them. It also distinguishes the tool from create_order by explaining that the questions cover every field create_order requires, and from get_discovery by naming that sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives an explicit trigger: call this when the person is ready to order. It also names the alternative for first orientation: call get_discovery. The no-key-needed note further clarifies invocation context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.